| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3309 = 1975 SLD 3309 = 1975 PLD 1032 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 1964, decided on 19th August 1975.
Presented By: Dorab Patel and M. A. Rashid, JJ
Shankarlal Patwari v. Hiralal Murarka and others A I R 1950 P C 80 ref. Keramat Ali and another v. Muhammad Yunus Haji and others P L D 1963 S C 191 and Uzir All Sardar v. Savai Behara I L R 43 Cal. 938 held not applicable. Muppavarapu Venkata Radhakrishna Rao and another v. Venthurumilli Venkata Rao and others A I R 1925 Mad. 2z9 dissented from. Narottan Raja Ram v. Mohan Lai Kahandas (1912) 37 Born. 289 approved. Iqbal Kazi for Appellant. Mansoorul Arfin for
Respondents.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 1964, decided on 19th August 1975.
Presented By: Dorab Patel and M. A. Rashid, JJ
Shankarlal Patwari v. Hiralal Murarka and others A I R 1950 P C 80 ref. Keramat Ali and another v. Muhammad Yunus Haji and others P L D 1963 S C 191 and Uzir All Sardar v. Savai Behara I L R 43 Cal. 938 held not applicable. Muppavarapu Venkata Radhakrishna Rao and another v. Venthurumilli Venkata Rao and others A I R 1925 Mad. 2z9 dissented from. Narottan Raja Ram v. Mohan Lai Kahandas (1912) 37 Born. 289 approved. Iqbal Kazi for Appellant. Mansoorul Arfin for
Respondents.
FAHIM & CO. AND ANOTHER-Appellants
VERSUS
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND 5 OTHER - Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 151, 107(1)(d)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 151 read with S. 107(1)(d)-Appellate Court allowing amendment of pleadings-Not bound to remand case for recording of evidence and passing orders-Appellate Court empowered to record evidence and decide matter itself-[Muppavarapu Venkata RadhakrLshna Rao and another v. Venthurumilli Venkata Rao and others A 1 R 1925 Mad. 229 dissented from]. Date of hearing : 19th August 1975. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-This application under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code raises a short but important point of practice. Letters patent appeals had been filed more than eleven years ago against the judgment of a learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court. These appeals were heard more than one year ago, and the Letters Patent Bench decided to allow both parties to amend their pleadings by an order dated 29th March, 1974. On 30th April 1974, the learned Judges of the Division Bench framed two additional issues by consent, and the part of this order, which is relevant, reads as follows "Mr. Mansoorul Arfin states that he will not produce any evidence at this stage on the first issue but if necessary he will produce evidence in rebuttal. He, however, states that so far this issue is concerned there is material on record and he will rely on it. Mr. Iqbal Kazi states that he will produce evidence on both the issues. Mr. lbadatyar Khan states that he is not affected by the additional issues and therefore he will not produce any evidence. Case fixed for evidence on 15th May 1974." We can only take this order to mean that the learned Judges, who had passed it, had decided to record…